July 13, 2006

Watch this new ad for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Try to put yourself in the frame of mind of a person who isn't committed to either party, and see how you react. At Ankle Biting Pundits, they're assuming this is such a plainly despicable ad that it will backfire. But I think it's an effective ad, although, absurdly, what's most effective is the voice of Bill Clinton. The effect of Bill Clinton, to me, is so strong that it blocked out my memory of everything else in the commercial. I went back and watched it a second time to keep track of my response. The ominous, pounding music was baldly manipulative. The series of images is so clearly meant to make you think yes, everything really is terrible.... and it's the Republicans' fault that the manipulation is easy to resist. A hurricane map? As if forces of nature are part of a big plot! But, when we hear the familar voice say "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"... well, it seems there is nothing wrong with this commercial that cannot be cured by what we really loved about Bill Clinton.

(I'm just being honest. Go ahead and insist that Bill Clinton is contemptible, but you'll be missing the point. )

UPDATE: The DCCC has pulled the ad for the reason chezDiva brings up in the fourth comment here: the use of the flag-draped coffins of soldiers.

53 comments:

" The series of images is so clearly meant to make you think yes, everything really is terrible.... and it's the Republicans' fault that the manipulation is easy to resist. A hurricane map? As if forces of nature are part of a big plot!"

Are you implying that Bush does not, in fact, control the weather? Stop being part of the Repugnican spin-cycle lie machine, you proto-fascist tyranny-denier!

(I miss Quxxo enough to mock him, but if this were one of his posts, it would be followed by paragraph after paragraph of links and quotes to stories on far left sites priving that Bush does, in fact, control the weather).

To be fair, the hurricane image is defensible as a shorthand reminder of the mismanagement after Katrina. (Not that the Democrats in a position to deal with the Katrina aftermath showed better management skills.)

Our personal perceptions and experiences contribute to how we view and interpret this commercial.

The only part of the commercial that bothered me was the flag draped coffins - but I am an Army wife.

I felt that the ad used the flag draped coffins image as a political statement that backs up the views of some of those who think "Bush Lied...". Using the image of our fallen troops on their final voyage home as a political tactic sickens me. They could have gotten their message across without that image.

"(Not that the Democrats in a position to deal with the Katrina aftermath showed better management skills.)"

That's the key point. From which party's ranks were the people who were most directly responsible for the failures to act drawn? Well, so far as New Orleans is concerned, Katrina was first and foremost a failure of the city and state authorities to plan, prepare and react. That is not to excuse FEMA's failures; yes things went wrong at the Federal level, yes that is Bush's responsibility (not necessarily his fault, indisputably his responsibility), but the real scandal with the Katrina response, as far as I'm concerned, is the failure of the local and state authorities, virtually all of whom are democrats. It is a sign of how much has gone wrong with the federal system that all eyes turn to Washington when a crisis needs a response, and in any event, is the D3C sure it wants to be throwing those stones in that pretty glass house it's in? Desparation is such an unattractive trait.

The Republicans should come out with their own commercial. They can blame everything on Clinton. They can blame 9-11 on clinton. they can blame Enron on Clinton and all the exhuberance. The tag line would be that all democrats do is make everything artificially rosey and then set us up for a big fallDemocratic policies led to the folowing:

I think it overall effective, but I think they erred in one respect-- including Pelosi.

I think she is overwhelmingly regarded as ineffective, and she blunted the impact.

Please note that an old advertising study found that those most affected by ads were those that thought they were most resistant.

I also was struck by my son's reaction-- "They going to haul Clinton out of retirment to run? Repubs out to run Teddy Roosevelt against him.". Tempus fugits and Clinton's impact is little among the young.

Another thing that was good about Clinton was that he always projected a sense of confident knowledge when speaking publically. Watching the current President stumble about in front of a podium can be nerve wracking.

And here's a crazy idea. Why doesn't (Bill) Clinton pick a House seat occupied by a Republican in Arkansas and run for the House. Make it clear he would be the next Speaker. That might give Dem congressional hopes some punch.

Icepick, I think it's because he'd have to establish some sort of residency there (I don't know Arkansas's laws on the matter, but he'd probably at least have to rent an apartment in the district) and that's going to raise a lot of questions about if this means they're separating; just answering in the negative would take time and energy HRC wouldn't want to use up if she's preparing a White House run.

The democrats went high and right when President Bush's re-election campaign used an image of him on the phone that was taken on AF1 on 9-11. (Something I don't think people knew until it was pointed out) They accused him of politicizing 9-11.

So whats the difference now? Why the images of dead soldiers, who, ststistically, were mostly not Democrats?

It looks like he's running again! Is this the only popular Democrat left?

But we only loved Bill Clinton after he left--sort of like when you eventually forget what a rat your ex was. I worked for Clinton's campaign even though I thought he was a phony, the kind of guy who talked about women's rights and then groped you in the xerox room. Hey, I was right, too.

Americans are buying gas and going on vacation. They're working. They're not overly worried about "climate change," which Clinton suggested at Aspen could be a winner for Dems. They revere, not pity, our volunteer military. Corruption? How about Jefferson's freezer--much cooler image than Abramoff's fedora. They are, however, worried about the assault on our culture and economy by illegal immigration, which was NEVER mentioned in the ad! (Substitute "we" for "they" in most of this.)

Grade: A for images ala Michael Moore, F for content. Save some dough and go back to "America can do better."

Quxxo,Regardless of what anyone thinks of global warming and what causes it, I wasn't aware that it had been conclusively linked to the increase in hurricaines. Certainly, I've read papers suggesting the link, and it has that sort of truthiness feel to it (after all, global warming is climate change, increased frequency and scale of hurricaines are changing weather, so it stands to reason that climate change drove this weather change, right?), but I've read equally serious papers - from scientists who 100% buy into global warming and who 100% buy into the "industry is doing it" argument for global warming - who simply don't believe that the two are linked, and that hurricaine production is a cyclical function of north atlantic and carribean weather conditions. And, naturally, then there are also scientists who dispute the "men cause global warming" thesis who also question the link. So in any event, with such a vigorous debate underway, and so few concrete conclusions, to paint it as being settled beyond doubt that bush = global warming = katrina is little short of absurd. Even scientists on your side dispute the link.

It is so far from being established that even NPR ran interviews from scientists on both sides of the argument.

What strikes me about the Bill Clinton bit, is that the current democratic minority repudiates his best ideas: free trade, welfare reform, a growth-based economic policy.

I also love the "Republicans control the weather" theme and the dissonance of "Nuclear power: bad; Global warming: bad." Someone tell me, where are all those Republican Nuclear Power plants being built? In my dreams.

"I also love the "Republicans control the weather" theme and the dissonance of "Nuclear power: bad; Global warming: bad." Someone tell me, where are all those Republican Nuclear Power plants being built? In my dreams."

Not to mention the dissonance between the claim that global warming is bad, but that the widely-deployable power source with the lowest emissions is ALSO bad. So let's get this right: no to fossil fuels, but no to nuclear power? Presumably we should line our costs with wave power, convert arizona and texas into solar farms, pave over New England for wind farms, and then turn off enough electricity to make up the shortfall. They really don't think this stuff through.

I thought it was a powerful vision. At a time when you must get the most bang for the ad dollar, this will make a powerful impression on real Americans who see it. Of course, Fascist republicans will have a hard time figuring out real American values.

Isn't the ultimate message of the ad supposed to be that there's nothing wrong with America that can't be cured by getting more Democrats in Congress? Bill Clinton's not exactly your go-to guy for that.

I just don't get the fascination with Clinton. Sure, he was good at talking, but do those of you who like really think there's a there there? Really? I'm not referring to his intelligence, mind you, but rather having something one actually stands for.

Put me down in George Will's column--Clinton was far from a bad president (lots of stuff, like NAFTA, welfare reform, etc was good albeit not necessarily his ideas) but quite possibly the worst man to ever be president.

I don't get the fascination, either. Nothing about the ad "moved" me - the weather map made me laugh..and Clinton in the end just made me think the Democrats are tired. Unrelenting negativity followed by one positive thought, uttered by a voice from the past. Even though, to many, Clinton never left. I found the whole thing bleak and unconvincing.

I'm minded of a book review once reportedly given by Abraham Lincoln. To paraphrase: "If you like this sort of book, this is the sort of book you'll like."

My guess is that Democrats will view this advertisement with approval. Its nearly hagiographic treatment of Pelosi, Emanuel, and Hoyer, not to mention Clinton, is not intended to win new converts to the Democratic Party. Both parties have, in fact decided that they're not in the business of expanding their bases and thereby, adding to their capacity to govern. Instead, they believe in throwing meat, sound bites, and selective imagery at the already-convinced or to the easily-convice-able in order to ensure financial and other forms of support to their party.

This ad seems specifically designed to elicit financial support for Dem candidates and to energize the base. So, I don't think they care if this ad offends or turns off Republicans and independents.

By the way, I didn't react to the ad in the same way as you did, Ann. I didn't find Clinton's voice and image such a jarring thing that I couldn't remember the rest of the ad's images, etc. In fact, I sort of laughed when I heard and saw Clinton.

It was, as they say, deja vu all over again. In 1993, when he left office, George H.W. Bush was sort of the crazy uncle Republicans didn't want to talk about and who the nation dismissed. But eight years later, people were downright nostalgic for him, a feeling that no doubt contributed greatly to the Year 2000 success of his son. I sense that there are similar sentiments for Clinton these days, although he will always be a somewhat controversial figure. Not to Democrats, though. For them, he's Saint Bill, the keeper of the flame. That's why he's so effective in getting Dems charged up.

Don't get the fascination with Clinton? Well, that's amusing coming from people so steadfastly fascinated with this current trainwreck of a President. I don't personally believe that Clinton was one of our top 10 presidents, but he accomplished a hell of a lot more than the current one. And he left this country in far better shape than he found it, which looking at the news doesn't seem to be the case with W.

And the whole coffin controversy is rich from Republicans who had no problem showing picture after picture of the smoldering mound that used to be the Twin Towers. I'm not saying that it's in good taste, but Republcans drew this battleground. It's to late to start whining about unfairness now.

This ad seems specifically designed to elicit financial support for Dem candidates and to energize the base. So, I don't think they care if this ad offends or turns off Republicans and independents.

I thought this as well.

Clinton-love: Liberals generally loved him, not because of his policies which they ordinarily would have found repugnant from someone with an (R) after their name, but because he drove convervatives batsh*t crazy.

Independents at least approved because of low gas prices, low unemployment, and a soaring stock market.

The image of the nuclear power plant is not just incoherent in terms of a party that claims to want a sound national energy policy, but so oddly anachronistic. There just aren't any nuclear power plants being built these days (though there should be).

Why not show an open pit coal mine? My guess is that the Democrats know they've already alienated blue-collar Ohioans enough, without also threatening their livelihoods.

I want to see the Republicans respond with pictures of wind farms killing baby song birds. That would really advance the debate.

"Liberals generally loved him, not because of his policies which they ordinarily would have found repugnant from someone with an (R) after their name, but because he drove convervatives batsh*t crazy."

If that is true, David Frum was right - the democratic party "has rendered itself unfit for and incapable of wielding political power." Anyone who is so foolish as to embrace someone they disagree with for no better reason than because the other side hates them deserves the minority status that they appear to have voluntarily relegated themselves to. Vote for them because they're better than the other guy, sure - but to give them accolades just because it drives the other guy nuts? That's not politics, that's kindergarten. And they have the nerve to suggest that the GOP has demeaned political debate in this country.

Henry:"Why not show an open pit coal mine? My guess is that the Democrats know they've already alienated blue-collar Ohioans enough, without also threatening their livelihoods."

Not just Ohio, but particularly West Virginia, where coal mining is an absolutely vital part of the economy, and houeshold incomes are already the lowest in the country. This in a state with two Democratic Senators (one of whom is up for re-election this year) and a Democratic Governor. Say what you like about Rep. Emmanuel, but he's not a moron, and he therefore must surely understand that their agenda doens't play well with the voters they need. So I suspect that it isn't an oversight that the Dems refuse to adopt something like a contract with America, as many have urged; it's because if Democrats wrote down what they actually believed in one place that people could read and consider definitive, they'd lose every seat outside of the coasts and Illinois.

Vote for them because they're better than the other guy, sure - but to give them accolades just because it drives the other guy nuts? That's not politics, that's kindergarten.

Well, in fact, some of us had it both ways. I voted for Clinton twice because he was a lot closer to me on the issues than his opposition. The fact that he drove the wing-nuts to fits of apoplexy was just the delicious creamy filling on the deal.

Simon, if you want to drop all the blame at the feet of local Democrats, you're out of touch with what happened in the aftermath of Katrina. Stripping FEMA of experienced management and packing it with political friends guaranteed a sluggish, inadequate response. Those actions are Bush's responsibilily; he was irresponsible and acted to put personal attachments over the safety and security of U.S. citizens. Placing it under Homeland Security was another bad choice, and congressional Democrats and Republicans both signed off on that.

The disaster, of course, wasn't the hurricane, it was the failure of the levees and canals, and those are federally designed, built and maintained. That goes to straight to the Army Corps of Engineers and likewise is the responsibility of both parties, who have overseen, funded and come up with the mandates for the COE. Local officials are responsible for poor input into those designs, including insisting on locating pumps too far away from the lake to do any good, and on resisting the use of floodgates.

There's much blame to go around. Looking for a simplistic partisan target is foolish.

The ad still continues to have the problem that the Democrats have had for years... Specifically, why should I vote for the Democrats?

It showed some depressing/tough pictures and then butressed the point/emotion by moving to pictures of Republicans getting arrested while telling you that they have sold out.

Then they show happy pictures of children, military and Democrats and have one of the Most Popular recent Democrats tell you that what is wrong with the country can be fixed by what is right with the country.

I think this ad only works for the Democrats if you are predispostion to blame all of the problems in the recent 5 years on Bush and/or the Republicans. It also requires that you believe that things are going to hell in a hand basket, rather than getting better.

I agress with the Ad's ending point "There is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what right with America", but replacing the current Republican leadership with the current Democrat leadership will not help us along that direction. I'd give odds that it would move us backwards (assuming the Democrats managed to get their act together after the election).

"This ad seems specifically designed to elicit financial support for Dem candidates and to energize the base. So, I don't think they care if this ad offends or turns off Republicans and independents."

I don't think there is any doubt about that. This is a run-up for congressional elections and getting the base overall - rather than for a particular candidate - is the goal of the DCCC. Thus, its not geared towards converting Republicans across the aisle - just getting Democrats to come out. I think its also geared, however, at independents as well. As Fox's most recent poll shows (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203346,00.html). 55% of Independents are less likely to vote for a candidate if Bush campaigns for him/her whereas only 7% are more likely to vote for a candidate if Bush does campaign for them. In fact, the whole article suggests that the advertisement is pretty well tailored for its target audience - in essence - the 55% of Americans who disprove of the Bush administration.

"Liberals generally loved him, not because of his policies which they ordinarily would have found repugnant from someone with an (R) after their name, but because he drove convervatives batsh*t crazy."

Simon: - "If that is true, David Frum was right - the democratic party "has rendered itself unfit for and incapable of wielding political power." Anyone who is so foolish as to embrace someone they disagree with for no better reason than because the other side hates them deserves the minority status that they appear to have voluntarily relegated themselves to. Vote for them because they're better than the other guy, sure - but to give them accolades just because it drives the other guy nuts? That's not politics, that's kindergarten. And they have the nerve to suggest that the GOP has demeaned political debate in this country."

I expect that the Democrats would say the same thing about conseratives, wouldn't they? That many Republicans believe that Bush has abandoned conservative principles but still support him and his policies mostly because he drives liberals nuts. Actually, I think the Democrats would probably have the better argument on this score. (I wonder all the time how other Republican libertarians can support Bush...but some do.) Not that I think its a score worth tallying.

So Bush has alienated both his base and the Democrats by spending heaps of dough the Democrats would have spent anyway had they been in office? And Bush did this so he could retain power while the Democrats are complaining because they can't do the same thing?

WHich is why I said it wasn't a score worthy of tallying. However, there is some truth therein...I'm not so sure that the Democrats could have gotten the Medicare bill passed. Conversely, I'm not so sure that the Republicans could have pushed through welfare reform.

Coco,What do you mean by "I'm not so sure that the Republicans could have pushed through welfare reform." Was it not a Republican control Congress that got welfare reform passed? Am I forgetful or are you trying to rewrite history?

One of Bill Clinton's biggest problems, one that manifests itself through everything that he has ever done, is that the man is in love with himself.

For example at his high point, maybe 97 or 98, he had huge positives, refused to spend a single iota of that political capital doing anything useful like work on Social Security. That was a task that a Democrat had to tackle.

Give Bush credit, whether you agree with his attempt to reform SS or not, he had the balls to try. Low on capital he tried.

SS and medicare are huge problems and the Dems and the NYT are in denial. why? because Bush says there is a problem...

I can't easily put myself into the mind of Ann's hypothetical uncommitted voter, but I do like the ad's second half. If the Democrats could make this their predominant message, it would be a good thing for them and for the country.

But the presence of the various manipulative images in the first half of the ad suggests to me that they won't be able to stick to the positive. Clinton understood Reagan's success well enough to be able to reproduce it. But I think that the current batch of Democratic leaders understand neither Reagan nor Clinton.

A question for Ann, in response to this comment (from Jack): "I can't easily put myself into the mind of Ann's hypothetical uncommitted voter"

On that topic, I wonder what our Hostess thinks about the potential nomination candidates in '08 on the GOP side, since the field of candidates now seems to be settling. Are there any that could keep you in the fold? Are there any you're certain would push you out? Or does it all depend too much on who the Democratic candidate is to say?

Elizabeth -- I think the point is that the Democrats, in their ad, are trying to create a "simplistic partisan target."

Henry, I'll be looking for you to step up and point that out when the GOP ads targeting the Democratic governor for her response to Katrina come out. Bush has things to be held accountable for regarding Katrina. The Dems will aim at that. Locally, that will be true for Democrats in charge at the time.

This has already been covered, but I'll add a hear, hear: It's not that people don't like politicians who are phony - they actually do. It's that they are turned-off by politicians who are incompetently phony. Hillary's phoniness is charmlessly transparent - and maybe it's me but it also seems tinged with contempt. Bill was full of shit, but we loved him (some of us) because he also seemed so full of love and joy. Hillary does not seem full of love and joy. She seems like Nixon. But Nixon did win. Twice.

Here's a nightmare I keep having. The Dems purge their wackos, and a tough-talking Hillary gets the nod. The Repubs hold their noses and give it to Rudy. Then health problems force Rudy out of the race. Despite our pleas, Condi refuses her rendevous with destiny. And presto! Hillary becomes 44.

Consider where the ad is placed..on a Democratic website...not out in the general view (though with the web, I'm not sure there's much difference anymore)This is raw meat to fire up the party hardcores.But it's not that far off from an ad you might see in Canada, England or some other country with a parliamentary system. Imagine the spot ending with Vote Liberal/Vote Labor/vote today's NDP.

As others have said, this ad is aimed at Democrats, specifically at getting Democrats to part with their money. I think the point of all the negative images is to encourage Democrats to believe a campaign contribution would be a good investment. It's saying: "No way we're losing to the GOP this time. Look at all the baggage they have to carry!"

It's noteworthy, of course, that they don't ever say why Democrats would be any better, or what they would do differently. But in this context, the reason is that they don't want to offend anyone in their own party. The Democrats have the same problem as the Republicans; half their agenda offends half their base.

So, the ad-makers figured, keep it simple. Katrina. War. Culture of corruption. We got 'em right where we want 'em.

I think including Clinton was a mistake, however. Not that he isn't exciting and all that, but he's a man of the past. Where was Obama?